The central legal point established in the judgment is that the legal representatives of a deceased complainant should be allowed to participate in the proceedings to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and the court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to ensure the ends of justice are met.

JUDGMENT

K.Somashekar, J. - Sri. Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioners appears through video conferencing. But in this petition, notice against the accused/respondent in C.C.No.5288/2015 has been served but unrepresented.

2. Though the case is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. This petition is filed for quashing the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the XVI ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.5288/2015 arose in PCR No.2064/2013 and to restore the complaint.

4. It is stated in the complaint filed by the complainant namely A.Krishnappa in PCR No.2064/2013 against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act relating to bouncing of cheque at Rs.4,00,000/-. During the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the complainant-A.Krishnappa died leaving behind the petitioners No. 1 to 4 who are his wife and children respectively. Hence, the petitioners have preferred an application under Section 256(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission from the Court to come on record by producing the death certificate as well as family tree along with vakalath. However, the trial Court has insisted for the presence of the petitioners before the Court and consequently, the case was dismissed on 13.01.2017 for default. Whereas in this petition the copy of the impugned order dated 13.01.2017 is produced as annexure-A, a copy of the complaint along with enclosures are produced as annexure-B, the death certificate of the defacto complainant is produced as annexure-c and a copy of the application is produced as annexure-D.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the erroneous order passed by the Court of XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which reads as under:

The complainant s counsel has reported the death of the complainant on 25.04.2016. But till date, no steps have been taken by the legal representatives of the complainant to come on record. It appears none is interested to proceed with the case. Accused is present but neither the counsel for the complainant nor any LRs of the complainant are present. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as abetted and for none prosecution .

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument has contended that the trial Court has erroneously insisted for the presence of petitioners before the Court without following the provisions of Section 256(2) of Cr.P.C. despite they have engaged the counsel to appear for them. Even though, the legal representatives of the original complainant Sri. A.Krishnappa are diligent, no opportunity was given to the petitioners and the case was erroneously dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners who are having good case and all chances of success in the said bouncing of cheque case wherein the accused is due to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with as it has been passed in a hurry without application of mind and without providing right of hearing to the petitioners concerned. Whereas in the petition, it is specifically stated relating to the limitation issues. The impugned order passed on 13.01.2017 by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the petitioners have obtained the certified copy on 20.02.2017. Therefore, this petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased is well within time. On all these grounds seeking for quashing the orders passed in C.C.No.5288/2015 (PCR NO.2064/2013) dated 13.01.2017 by the learned XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

7. Having gone through the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is relevant to sate here that the complainant namely A.Krishnappa had instituted a criminal prosecution against the respondent/accused namely B.S.Gururaj in PCR No.2064/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Ac